DOCSLIB.ORG

Social and Linguistic Factors As Predictors of Contact-Induced Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social and Linguistic Factors As Predictors of Contact-Induced Change SOCIAL AND LINGUISTIC FACTORS AS PREDICTORS OF CONTACT-INDUCED CHANGE Sarah G. Thomason University of Michigan 1. Introduction Two claims made by Thomason & Kaufman (1988) have elicited particularly strong reactions from specialists in language contact: first, that there are no absolute linguistic constraints on the kinds or numbers of features that can be transferred from one language to another; and second, that when social factors and linguistic factors might be expected to produce opposite results in a language contact situation, the social factors will be the primary determinants of the linguistic outcome. Both claims have frequently been challenged in recent years. Some of these challenges are based on a misunderstanding of our arguments; most seriously, some critics argue that we dismiss linguistic predictors as entirely irrelevant to an analysis of contact-induced change. More interesting objections to our position are based on genuine theoretical and/or empirical disagreements between Thomason & Kaufman (and also Thomason 2001, among other writings) and the critics. This paper explores one set of disagreements in an effort to arrive at a better understanding of the relative importance of social and linguistic predictors in language contact situations. I will argue that there is still good reason to view social factors as primary and linguistic factors as secondary in predicting contact-induced change, and that it is still true that no one has successfully proposed absolute linguistic constraints on contact-induced change. (I should emphasize that throughout this paper phrases like ‘linguistic constraints on contact-induced change‘ should be read in the traditional meaning of the term ‘constraint’—i.e., ‘it cannot happen’—rather than in the much more flexible “constraint” of the sort popularized by Optimality Theory.) The structure of the paper is as follows. After reviewing a few of the critics’ most important criticisms (§2), I will set the stage for my own analysis in §3, by presenting a historical linguist’s starting point in the search for causes of language change, by giving a definition of contact-induced change, and by outlining what is required to support a claim that contact-induced change has occurred. In §4 I will explain why I reject theories that claim, or assume, the existence of absolute linguistic constraints on such changes, and in §5 I will conclude by returning to the question of social vs. linguistic predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of language contact — THEMA 2 (2008) www. jlc-journal.org Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 11:12:28PM via free access Social and Linguistic Factors as Predictors of Contact-Induced Change 43 2. What do the critics say? First, some critics have interpreted the Thomason & Kaufman position as a complete rejection of any role for strictly linguistic factors in processes of contact-induced change. One example is in Gillian Sankoff’s important article ‘Linguistic outcomes of language contact’ (2001:640-641) : Lacking a quantitative perspective...T&K are forced to deny the importance of internal linguistic factors. The burden of T&K’s argument is that, given enough social pressure, anything can happen languageinternally, and they adduce examples in which suggested internal, structural constraints have been overridden. Sociolinguists have, understandably, been largely approving of the pride of place T&K attribute to social constraints. However, in rejecting the contribution of internal linguistic structure, T&K have thrown out the baby with the bathwater...T&K are very far from the truth in their blanket rejection of internal constraints. In this chapter, I will review literature from a quantitative sociolinguistic pespective, in which internal constraints have been shown to act jointly with external constraints in shaping language contact outcome. Similarly, Ruth King (2002) says that Thomason & Kaufman consider social predictors alone, claiming that we argue that social factors alone determine the linguistic outcomes of language contact; linguistic factors are said to play no role. Thus theirs is an “anything goes” perspective according to which elements from any linguistic subsystem may be borrowed. Parts of these comments are puzzling—for instance, it isn’t clear what the lack of a quantitative perspective has to do with a putative denial of ‘the importance of internal linguistic factors’, since a great many non-quantitative studies have demonstrated the importance of linguistic factors in motivating contact-induced (and other) changes. In any case, Sankoff and King are by no means the only authors who have interpreted Thomason & Kaufman this way. But here’s what we actually say about social and linguistic factors (1988:4; emphasis added): ...the history of a language is a function of the history of its speakers, and not an independent phenomenon that can be thoroughly studied without reference to the social context in which it is embedded. We certainly do not deny the importance of purely linguistic factors such as pattern pressure and markedness considerations for a theory of language change, but the evidence from language contact shows that they are easily overridden when social factors push in another direction. We actually agree with Sankoff’s view that ‘internal constraints...act jointly with external constraints in shaping language contact outcome’. Sizable parts of Thomason & Kaufman 1988, and of my writings since then (e.g. Thomason 2001), are in fact devoted to exploring the role of linguistic factors—especially typological distance between the source and receiving languages and considerations of universal markedness—in processes of contact-induced language change; our rough borrowing scale, to take just one example, offers a correlation between social and linguistic factors that (we argue) predicts which kinds of linguistic features are likely to be borrowed under which sets of social circumstances. The issue of absolute constraints on contact-induced change, which is also raised by Sankoff & King, is more interesting, because it’s trickier. In chapter 2 of our 1988 book, Kaufman and I surveyed all the proposed linguistic constraints that we could find in the literature. It was possible, and usually easy, to find counterexamples to everyone of them. Since then, many scholars have reacted skeptically to our conclusion that, in the absence of any successful linguistic constraints in the available proposals, it is reasonable to claim that the burden of proof had shifted from our position (‘there are no absolute linguistic constraints’) to the ‘there are too absolute linguistic constraints’ position. That is, we argued that the default assumption should now be that absolute Journal of language contact — THEMA 2 (2008) www. jlc-journal.org Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 11:12:28PM via free access 44 Sarah G. Thomason constraints do not exist, because so far all efforts to come up with successful linguistic constraints have failed; and anyone who wants to claim that they do exist must offer proof, in the form of a successsful absolute constraint. The authors who have addressed this issue (at least the authors whose writings I’m familiar with) have not done this. Skeptical reactions have mostly been of two different kinds. One seems to be a general expression of distress at the thought that linguistic structure might not be all-powerful in this domain. This viewpoint is expressed, for instance, by Aikhenvald (2002:3): It is hard to agree wholeheartedly with the basic starting-point of Thomason & Kaufman (1988:35) that “it is the sociolinguistic history of the speakers, and not the structure of their language, that is the primary determinant of the linguistic outcome of language contact.” Typologically different linguistic structures tend to change in different ways, even when the speakers share a great deal of sociolinguistic history. In part Aikhenvald’s concern echoes Sankoff and King, but Aikhenvald introduces another angle with her comment about about the role of typology in guiding different changes. In this respect she is in tune with other critics who point out the absence of particular types of contact-induced changes in particular contact situations. (Since she talks about tendencies rather than absolutes, it may also be that she doesn’t disagree with us at all, in spite of her assertion that she does: we never claimed that all kinds of structural interference are equally probable; we merely claimed that none can be absolutely ruled out.) Another prominent criticism that focuses on the absence of particular types of change in particular contact situations is Silva-Corvalán’s argument (1994:134) that only those [linguistic features] that are compatible...with the structure of the borrowing language...will be adopted, disseminated, and passed on to new generations. Silva-Corvalán’s conclusion is drawn from her research on Spanish-English contact in Los Angeles, a detailed and sophisticated analysis of a wide range of contact phenomena. The problem with her argument is that there is no reason to expect that EVERY kind of contact-induced change will occur in EVERY contact situation; even in the most intense contact situation, only some kinds will occur (Thomason 2000). As Sankoff suggests, there is a complex interplay between social and linguistic causal factors in any changes in contact situations, and it is wildly improbable that any pair of situations will have the exact same mix. Since Silva-Corvalán makes no attempt to refute the counterexamples to her proposed universal constraint based on structural compatibility that are adduced (in response to previous authors’ similar claims) in Thomason & Kaufman (1988), her argument is, in effect, that it didn’t happen here, so it can’t happen anywhere. But this can’t be right: nobody, certainly not Thomason & Kaufman and as far as I know not anyone else either, claims that any kind of language change can be absolutely predicted, in any kind of situation. The fact that certain types of contact-induced change are possible in a given contact situation therefore does not mean that we can confidently expect to find them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRANSITIVITY in FLATHEAD Sarah Thomason & Daniel Everett
    317 318 TRANSITIVITY IN FLATHEAD ANTIPASSIVE suffix -( elm (usually called "middle" in the Salishalliiterature); transitives with the BACKGROUNDED AGENT suffix -( elm (often called "passive/indefinite agent" Sarah Thomason & Daniel Everett in the literature); DERIVED TRANSITIVES in m; TRANSITIVE CONTINUATIVES in -( e)m; University of Pittsburgh transitives detransitivized by lexical suffixes; and transitives detransitivized by the reflexive suffix -cut. These nine constructions do not, of course, exhaust the list of relevant patterns; our work is at a preliminary stage, and we have not yet explored ABSTRACT all the constructions that have some connection with transitivity. We omit a few Flathead, a Salishan language spoken in northwestern Montana, has a ver­ detransitivizing constructions, notably the reciprocal, because they behave basically bal system that seems at first glance to distinguish transitive constructions like reflexive forms with respect to transitivity. We do not consider unaccusatives. from intransitive ones in a quite straightforward way: transitive verbs have a We also omit discussion of the so-called "intransitive reflexives". A more significant transitive suffix and a characteristic set of subject and object markers, while omission is the lack of any specific consideration of interactions between control and intransitive verbs lack the transitive suffix and have a completely different set transitivity (see e.g. Thompson 1985); we have as yet too little information on control of subject markers. In addition, the two constructions differ systematically in features in Flathead to comment on them here. Another major transitivity-related topic their marking of adjunct (or argument) noun phrases. Initial appearances are that is largely omitted from our account is the patterning of the various constructions deceiving, however.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Dialect Contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the Formation of a Speech Community
    LANGUAGE AND DIALECT CONTACT IN SPANISH IN NEW YORK: TOWARD THE FORMATION OF A SPEECH COMMUNITY RICARDO OTHEGUY ANA CELIA ZENTELLA DAVID LIVERT Graduate Center, University of California, Pennsylvania State CUNY San Diego University, Lehigh Valley Subject personal pronouns are highly variable in Spanish but nearly obligatory in many contexts in English, and regions of Latin America differ significantly in rates and constraints on use. We investigate language and dialect contact by analyzing these pronouns in a corpus of 63,500 verbs extracted from sociolinguistic interviews of a stratified sample of 142 members of the six largest Spanish-speaking communities in New York City. A variationist approach to rates of overt pro- nouns and variable and constraint hierarchies, comparing speakers from different dialect regions (Caribbeans vs. Mainlanders) and different generations (those recently arrived vs. those born and/ or raised in New York), reveals the influence of English on speakers from both regions. In addition, generational changesin constrainthierarchiesdemonstratethat Caribbeansand Mainlandersare accommodating to one another. Both dialect and language contact are shaping Spanish in New York City and promoting, in the second generation, the formation of a New York Spanish speech community.* 1. INTRODUCTION. The Spanish-speaking population of New York City (NYC), which constitutesmorethan twenty-five percent of the City’stotal, tracesitsorigins to what are linguistically very different parts of Latin America. For example, Puerto Rico and Mexico, the sources of one of the oldest and one of the newest Spanish- speaking groups in NYC respectively, have been regarded as belonging to different areasfrom the earliesteffortsat dividing Latin America into dialect zones(Henrı ´quez Uren˜a 1921, Rona 1964).
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Language Contact Effects in Ancient Contact Situations Sarah
    Determining language contact effects in ancient contact situations Sarah Thomason University of Michigan Proving the existence of ancient language contacts is easy; proving the existence of ancient contact-induced language change is much more difficult, by compari- son to analyses of modern contact situations. This paper surveys some ancient contacts and their effects on the languages. The main conclusion is that the historical methods used for analyzing better-documented contact situations can be applied to ancient contact situations as well. But the chances for success are likely to be more limited, because gaps in the available information may make it impossible to satisfy the prerequisites for proposing contact-induced changes. 1. Introduction. Language contact is almost as old as humankind. It has surely been a constant feature of human culture for as long as humans have spoken more than one language|which, if we assume a monogenetic origin for humans and therefore for human language, would presumably have been somewhere from several hundred to several thousand years after the beginning, depending on when the earliest speech community broke up into two or more subcommunities or separate communities. Evidence of language contact, however, is much more recent. To a certain extent we can infer the existence of language contacts from known population movements and cultural practices. So, for instance, the amount of linguistic diversity in New Guinea, with its thou- sand or so languages, must have taken many millennia to develop (even before Austronesian speakers arrived a few thousand years ago to settle around the island's coast), and there is no reason to suppose that the intensive language contact that characterizes the island is a modern phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Languages and Contacts?
    WHY LANGUAGES AND1 CONTACTS? Petr Zima, Faculty of Humanities Charles University, Praha 1. Preliminaries The concept and terminology of “languages in contact” developed by various structuralist schools since Weinreich's time is undoubtedly a great advance over the neogrammarian viewpoint of the traditional comparative linguistics. As for the neogrammarians, they considered the phenomena of mutual influence between languages to be a sort of “dustbin”, where exceptions and complications, impossible to be explained by internal laws of historical development of genetic language trees were to be laid off. That is why the generation of Weinreich has proposed to analyse this field in the light of two (or more) contacting language structures. Yet, this very term and concept of “contact linguistics” – though formulated in opposition to the traditional language trees of the comparativist past – was itself coined under the symbolic influence of the comparativist terminology and concepts. Whereas the neogrammarians were influenced by analogies with trees and branches of Darwin’s biology and Linné’s botany, the concept of languages in contact was also under the influence of figurative thinking, that of the science of man, antropology. In fact, while the neogrammarians presented languages in the light of their analogies with plants and animals, the early structuralist and even post-structuralist approach since Weinreich’s and Haugen’s time presented languages as human individuals in contact. Hence, though critically opposing the neogrammarians’ analogies, this approach built its own theoretical position under the unnoticed, but heavy influence of the same type of methodical parallels rooted in the figurative thinking of another discipline. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy Newsletter Fall 2012.Indd
    Michigan Philosophy News Fall 2012 for friends, alumni, alumnae of the Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor INSIDE THIS ISSUE • Graduate and Undergraduate Program News • Field Reports: PENGUIN, Science Fiction and Philoso- phy, Philosophy Movie Night, The Reference Book, and The Science of Ethics Project • Recent Graduates • Contributions Dear Friends of Michigan Philosophy, Loyal readers of the Michigan Philosophy News will recognize a new format this year. Instead of a single extended centerpiece in the form of a faculty article developing a research theme, we feature a number of shorter “fi eld reports,” meant to convey the range of departmental goings-on this year. This range includes (but is not limited to!) undergraduate course development, the co-curricular innovation of Philosophy Movie Night at the Michigan Theater, “The Science of Ethics” project, and PENGUIN, a graduate student initiative to teach philosophy in the Detroit public schools. Also in this year’s MPN, the Directors of Undergraduate and Graduate Studies report directly on their spheres. The only task this leaves the Department Chair is to deliver an overview of events and developments since the last MPN, and to express thanks to all of those who help to make philosophy at Michigan what it is. This I proceed to do. Faculty and Staff News Although we have no new full-time faculty to introduce, we have two “dry” appointments to announce, two visiting professors to welcome, and two faculty returning in newly elevated positions to celebrate. “Dry” appointments are faculty working full-time in other units, but ready and able to contribute to Departmental life, for instance by teaching cross-listed courses, advising graduate students, or initiating collaborative exchanges.
    [Show full text]
  • Bilingualism and Contact-Induced Language Change Sarah Thomason
    Bilingualism and contact-induced language change Sarah Thomason University of Michigan March 2005 This paper explores the relationship between bilingualism and contact-induced language change, focusing on the question of which contributions might be expected from children and which from adults. The issue is reflected in debates among historical linguists as to whether internally-motivated language change is initiated by children during first-language acquisition or by adults|or by both. In language contact studies, it is possible to identify changes, usually temporary ones, that are initiated by children, and it is also possible to identify changes that are initiated by adults. The conclusion, therefore, is that both adults and children are responsible for contact-induced changes, although perhaps not for the same kinds of changes: shift-induced interference, which is due to imperfect learning of a target language by members of a speech community, is likely to be exclusively an adult phenomenon, or at least not primarily initiated by young children during first-language acquisition. I will not address in detail the question of the role of adults vs. the role of children in the initiation and spread of linguistic changes more generally, but some implications of the results from contact-induced change will be discussed in the concluding section. After laying some preliminary groundwork ( 1), I will outline briefly the debate about x agents of change in historical linguistics and then consider innovations introduced by children and adults in contact situations in which both child learners and adults have full effective access to the source language(s) ( 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah Thomason's Brief CV
    Sarah Thomason's Brief CV August 2016 After receiving my Ph.D. from Yale University in 1968, I taught Slavic linguistics at Yale (1968-1971) and then general linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh (1972-1998). Since 1999 I've been at the University of Michigan, where I am now the Bernard Bloch Distinguished University Professor of Linguistics; I was Chair of the Linguistics Department 2010-2013. I have worked with elders at the Salish & Pend d'Oreille Culture Committee in St. Ignatius, Montana, since 1981, compiling a dictionary and other materials for the tribes' Salish-Pend d'Oreille language program. My current research focuses on contact- induced language change, endangered languages, and Salishan linguistics, but I also have a continuing interest in debunking linguistic pseudoscience. A few of my publications are Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics (with Terrence Kaufman, University of California Press, 1988, 1991), Language contact: an introduction (Edinburgh University Press & Georgetown University Press, 2001), Endangered languages: an introduction (Cam- bridge University Press, 2015), `Chinook Jargon in areal and historical context' (Language, 1983), `Genetic relationship and the case of Ma'a (Mbugu)' (Studies in African Linguis- tics, 1983), `Before the Lingua Franca: Pidgin Arabic in the eleventh century A.D.' (with Alaa Elgibali, Lingua, 1986), `Truncation in Montana Salish' (with Lucy Thomason, 2004), `Language contact and deliberate change' (Journal of Language Contact, 2007), `The Pacific Northwest linguistic area: historical perspectives' (2015), `Do you remember your previous life's language in your present incarnation?' (American Speech, 1984), and `At a loss for words' (Natural History magazine, December 2007/January 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Arabic and Contact-Induced Change Christopher Lucas, Stefano Manfredi
    Arabic and Contact-Induced Change Christopher Lucas, Stefano Manfredi To cite this version: Christopher Lucas, Stefano Manfredi. Arabic and Contact-Induced Change. 2020. halshs-03094950 HAL Id: halshs-03094950 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03094950 Submitted on 15 Jan 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Arabic and contact-induced change Edited by Christopher Lucas Stefano Manfredi language Contact and Multilingualism 1 science press Contact and Multilingualism Editors: Isabelle Léglise (CNRS SeDyL), Stefano Manfredi (CNRS SeDyL) In this series: 1. Lucas, Christopher & Stefano Manfredi (eds.). Arabic and contact-induced change. Arabic and contact-induced change Edited by Christopher Lucas Stefano Manfredi language science press Lucas, Christopher & Stefano Manfredi (eds.). 2020. Arabic and contact-induced change (Contact and Multilingualism 1). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/235 © 2020, the authors Published under the Creative Commons Attribution
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review on Code-Switching
    1 Code-switching as a Result of Language Acquisition: A Case Study of a 1.5 Generation Child from China1 Yalun Zhou, Ph.D.2 Michael Wei, Ph.D.3 Abstract Despite individual differences, all bilinguals share the ability to act in their native language, in their second language, and to switch back and forth between the two languages they know (Van Hell, 1998). Chinese is the largest Asian American ethnic group in the United States. Their use of code-switching is an increasingly important issue in understanding their language choice and language development. This study on code-switching between a 1.5 generation Chinese child and her parents will add perspectives on the growing literature of Chinese American families, their language interaction and language development. Introduction There are several definitions for code-switching. Gumperz (1982 b) defined code-switching as “the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems” (p. 59). The emphasis is on the two grammatical systems of one language, although most people refer to code-switching as the mixed use of 1 This paper was presented at the 2007 Annual Conference of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Seattle, Washington. 2 Yalun Zhou, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Director of Chinese Minor Program, Dept. of Communication and Media, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, [email protected] 3 Michael Wei, Ph.D., Associate Professor, TESOL Program Director, School of Education, University of Missouri-Kansas City, [email protected] 2 languages. Milroy and Muysken (1995) stated that code-switching is “the alternative use by bilinguals of two or more languages in the same conversation” (p.7).
    [Show full text]
  • ESSAY a Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation
    Journal of Scienti$c Exploration, Vol. 1 1, No. 4, pp. 499-526, 1997 0892-33 10197 01997 Society for Scientific Exploration ESSAY A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation Department of Philosophy, University Plazu, Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3083 Abstract - In his recently published book Reincarnation: A Critical Exami- nation (Amherst, New York: Promethius Books, 1996). Paul Edwards has of- fered a number of arguments against the possibility of reincarnation. It is a sweeping effort to show that the very idea of reincarnation is illogical and in- defensible. While not arguing directly for reincarnation, this essay criticizes the main arguments, methodology and polemics wielded in what is more an effort to debunk than to carry out the critical examination claimed in the title of the book. In criticizing Edward's arguments this essay is criticizing the major objections available against the reincarnation hypothesis. Keywords: reincarnation -philosophy Introduction In his recent book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1996), Paul Edwards examines critically both the belief in reincarnation and the belief in the Law of Karma. For the author, both beliefs are mutually entailing and demonstrably indefensible. The author is strongly inclined to think that the belief in reincarnation is conceptually inco- herent (rather than simply false) because of the "nonsensicality" of such no- tions as the "astral body" and the "womb-invasion" of the prospective mother by the soul or astral body. (p. 28) However popular such beliefs may be, the author seeks to show that they are not only foolish myths, unworthy of any ra- tional human being, but also part of the tide of irrationalism sweeping the Western World.
    [Show full text]
  • Word Order in American Danish Declaratives with a Non-Subject Initial Constituent
    journal of language contact 11 (2018) 413-440 brill.com/jlc Word Order in American Danish Declaratives with a Non-Subject Initial Constituent Karoline Kühl University of Copenhagen [email protected] Jan Heegård Petersen University of Copenhagen [email protected] Abstract The paper investigates the placement of subject and finite verb in topicalized, i.e. non-subject initial declarative main clauses in North American Danish. European Danish adheres to the V2-rule and thus requires inversion, while North American Danish allows for non-inversion, i.e. [X]sv word order. Based on a sample of approx. 1700 tokens of topicalized declarative clauses produced by 64 speakers, we observe a general stability of V2 in North American Danish. In order to explain the instances of non-V2, we employ both linguistic and sociolinguistic factors. Keywords North American Danish – syntax – topicalization – V2 – non-inversion 1 Introduction The non-inversion of subject and verb in non-subject initial declarative main clauses (topicalized clauses) is a recognized feature in Germanic heritage languages in North America. This paper adds to the field of research a cor- pus-based study of this phenomenon in American Danish. Standard Danish, a typical V2 language, strictly adheres to the so-called V2 rule, whereby the finite verb is in second position and the preceding field is filled by exactly one © Karoline Kühl and Jan Heegård Petersen, 2018 | doi 10.1163/19552629-01103003 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the prevailing cc-by-nc license at the time of publication. Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 01:10:58AM via free access <UN> 414 Kühl and Petersen constituent (xvs).
    [Show full text]
  • Contact Languages Around the World and Their Levels of Endangerment
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarSpace at University of Hawai'i at Manoa Vol. 12 (2018), pp. 53–79 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24764 Revised Version Received: 23 Jan 2017 Contact languages around the world and their levels of endangerment Nala H. Lee National University of Singapore This paper provides an up-to-date report on the vitality or endangerment status of contact languages around the world, including pidgins, creoles, and mixed lan- guages. By utilizing information featured in the Endangered Languages Project and the Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Languages online portals, 96 contact languages are assessed on the Language Endangerment Index, a method of assessment that is based on four factors including intergenerational transmission, absolute num- ber of speakers, speaker number trends, and domains of use. Results show that the contact languages are most at risk with respect to intergenerational transmis- sion and domains of use. This is explained by the social and historical nature of contact languages. Overall results further raise the concern that the proportion of pidgins, creoles and mixed languages at some level of risk is extremely high. Rea- sons are provided for why linguists should be concerned about the endangerment of these languages. 1. Introduction1 While the language endangerment problem has been generally well- highlighted in linguistics, the endangerment of contact languages has not received the same level of attention. Krauss (1992) postulates that at least half and possibly as much as 90% of the world’s languages will no longer be spoken by the end of the present century, while a more recent empirical study estimates a slightly less catas- trophic rate of loss, at one language every three months (Campbell et al.
    [Show full text]